User talk:Twipley

Why would anybody write anything here? :S

September 11 attacks

Please try to keep your talk page comments polite and to the point (i.e. focussed on improving the article). Thanks in advance. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 23:01, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

then, we'd need a metawikipedia discussion page. and about the accusation of impoliteness, I'd urge you to readjust your glasses, my friend. Twipley (talk) 01:44, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry. That wasn't meant as an accusation but a bit of helpful advice. Regards, SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 02:26, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

No, that's okay and I take it, it's just the "impolite" word that struck me. Don't get me wrong, my meaning was empathy, not impoliteness. Twipley (talk) 04:21, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Capitalization of iNtuition in the MBTI articles

Thanks for the compliment, Twipley. I'm trying to build consensus on the MBTI talk page for abandoning the practice of capitalizing the cognitive functions. The official MBTI publications don't do it. Until then, however, I'd prefer to continue using "iNtuition" rather than changing it to lowercase, for consistency with the other functions. Then, I'll go through and change all the functions to lowercase at the same time. ThreeOfCups (talk) 00:30, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

oh, it's all yours. ;) didn't realize someone already was on the case...

how old are you, ThreeOfCups? I'm looking for a mate... I'm a good-looking man in his early twenties, right now eating carrots, a hot potato and some kind of unfrozen, recooked meat. I could get up to see the name but I'm just too hungry to get up right now. Twipley (talk) 01:14, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Cooperative vs. Utilitarian

Hi Twipley, I got your message on my talk page. In an educational (or business) environment, where logic is often valued above human concerns, people with a preference for Feeling may well favor their Thinking function while in that environment. To understand whether your preference is for Thinking or Feeling, it helps to also look at your personal relationships.

I also consider myself to be quite pragmatic, even though I'm a Feeling type. The two aren't mutually exclusive. For instance, when solving a problem involving people, an approach won't work if human factors aren't taken into account. One of the arguments currently being made about the bailout of the American auto industry is that people won't buy cars from a company that's filed for bankruptcy. So even if Chapter 11 bankruptcy would be the best solution from a logical standpoint, the mindset of consumers also has to be considered.

Your interest in personal growth suggests that you might be an Idealist (NF), but only you can say for sure. Idealists are guided by their ethics first and foremost. That's not to say that they're more ethical than other types; but Idealists base their ideas of right and wrong on their own personal values, not the laws of society (as Guardians normally do) or on what would have the best outcome from a pragmatic standpoint (as Rationals or Artisans might). Does that make sense?

If you haven't taken the Jung typology test at the HumanMetrics website, you might want to give it a try. I've known INFPs to test as INFJs in this test, but otherwise it seems to be pretty good. Here's the link: http://www.humanmetrics.com/cgi-win/JTypes2.asp

It's important to understand that preference isn't an indication of ability. Moreover, a strong preference for one function over another doesn't indicate a lack of balance. In Myers-Briggs terms, balance comes from a strong auxiliary function supporting the dominant function, not from achieiving neutrality on the scales. So if you're an INFP, that means balance would come from having a well-developed extraverted intuition (gathering information) to support your dominant introverted feeling (in making decisions).

If you're an introvert, and you feel like you could benefit from, say, joining Toastmasters to improve your public speaking ability, that's great. Nevertheless, an introvert is always going to feel drained by that activity and need some down time to recharge afterward. The point isn't to become someone you're not, but to understand and accept yourself the way you are. Some things will naturally come easily to you, and some things won't. And that's okay. ThreeOfCups (talk) 23:29, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Laplace's Demon

Twipley! This is in response to the comments you left on the Laplace's demon and Determinism pages, RE: what would happen if Laplace's theoretical computer told you where you'd be in two hours and why couldn't you just go to the movies instead? The way I see it is: Laplace's Machine takes in all data about you and the influences on you and all that at a molecular level, right, and then it says, "*bing!* You'll be at Jamie's in two hours!" Now, of course, knowing that result, it would be easy to just ignore it (even if you really were planning on going to Jamie's then). The problem with the argument, though, and the reason it doesn't support or deny free will (as I see it, anyway) is because your Laplace Machine didn't take into account its own prediction when calculating all influences on you and therefore was a flawed machine to begin with. Nor could a (real) Laplace Machine ever do so, as it would require infinite storage space to store information on itself which stored information on itself etc. etc. (which I think someone on the Laplace's demon page mentioned). This is a fascinating topic to me and I just thought I'd drop by and give you my $0.02. 138.69.160.1 (talk) 16:10, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

hello 138.69.160.1. thanks for dropping in your two cents! it is really a surprise to me. the problem though, with the machine you are describing, is, as you know, that it is fundamentally flawed. like you said, it may well be that such a machine cannot exist. still, both of us are left perplexed in front of the lifted paradox. at least, i now know that that i am not alone in my boat!

that being said, this is a most fascinating topic to me as well. i am so pleased you have come here to share your views on this. next, bring me that demon, so we can begin to investigate even closer. :)

your friend,

twipley

I have to disagree with the previous statement that a machine could not take into account its own prediction. If it was a powerful machine too begin with it wouldn't require infinite space to store the information. IT would know that by telling you the prediction that you would change your mind or wouldn't and would have already taken into account that decision. What some people do not do is take into account that the machine itself is part of the Causality of events discussed in the determinism theory and its interference would already be accounted for as it telling people would bring about certain events that in turn would cause another set of events. I am not sure i am communicating my point clearly... I would like to say thanks for the compliment on my page, that is unless there was sarcasm involved which i don't think that is the case since you seem nice enough. --Cloudblazer